Pages

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Suppose there's a farmer, producing a product. This product appeals to a segment of the population, and the users of the product, contend there is no harm in its use.

Now, suppose there's a government, and currently that government regulates that product - it could be the product is illegal or heavily regulated. They contend that the product causes harm when used.

The farmer argues that the product is safe for general consumption. The population who obtains the product also argue that it is safe for general consumption. This population can cite studies and reports showing the product is safe.

The government argues the product is not safe for general consumption. The population who do not use the product also argue that it is not safe for general consumption. This population can cite studies and reports showing the product is not safe.

Who is right?

Does it depend on the product? Does it depend on who you trust more?

Does it more or less depend upon which "population" you are a member of?

Is it possible, to support the heavy regulation of one product and not another?

Caucus colleagues say they didn't see it coming. But more important, Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't see it coming.

...

Chong, in their view, betrayed the Prime Minister by not clearly flagging his intent to resign, and by misrepresenting how Harper dealt with the former minister, whose responsibilities included the unity file.

Michael Chong, obviously having not really listened to or learned anything from many (or any) of his more experienced provincial counterparts or federal cabinet colleagues, decided to bull on with his own rather simplistic view of Canada as a single unitary nation. To be fair, he did the right thing by resigning from cabinet. I'm sure he'll still be an acceptable and effective MP for his riding. He was never a very effective Intergovernmental affairs minister.

I'm not the only one to think it bizarre that an intergovernmental affairs minister was not consulted about a motion involving intergovernmental affairs.

Chong, who was responsible for federal-provincial relations, was left out of the loop when Harper was deciding on the wording of the motion. Instead, the prime minister consulted with former intergovernmental affairs minister Stéphan Dion.

I would have liked it better had Mr. Chong broken ranks and voted against the motion. So much for those free votes the Conservative Party promised.

Last week the government of Stephen Harper introduced a motion in the House of Commons which will declare the Quebecois a nation within Canada. Since then, this action has been embraced by Quebec separatists, including Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

Debate on this motion is expected to be cut off Monday night, followed by a vote in the Commons. No public consultations are planned, no committee meetings are to be held and no chance for comments from the public to be tabled.

Independent MP Garth Turner disagrees with the process and is asking all Canadians interested in having their voice heard to vote in an online poll prior to the decision in Parliament. “This has the potential to alter our country in unknown ways,” Turner says, “and I see no reason why we are rushing to get this vote done in just a few days. Canadians did not ask for it, and need time to understand the implications. After all, if the Quebec separatists are so much in favour, this raises serious questions about what’s best for national unity.”

For what’s believed to be the first time, a sitting MP in the House of Commons is using online polling to gauge the mood of Canadians. Turner’s poll comes in addition to his own consultations with voters in his riding of Halton, where he held a Town Hall meeting Thursday night, at which constituents voted overwhelmingly against acceptance of the “Quebecois nation” motion.

People voting online are allowed just one ballot, with subsequent attempts to vote not being recorded. Preliminary voting results are scheduled to be released Sunday evening, November 26, with further results released Monday afternoon and prior to the Commons vote that evening.

“This could be a pivotal moment in national history, and I fear this move is being supported by the major parties for purely political self-interest,” Turner says. “So I encourage all Canadians to be heard in the scant few hours which remain before this vote is forced. I will ensure every MP is made aware of the results.”

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Although the media focus has been on the Liberal leadership, polling shows that there are clearly some bigger issues with the Liberal ‘brand’. The fact that one of every three Canadians, unprompted, used words like ‘corrupt’ and ‘scandal’ to describe the Liberals shows that the Liberal image has not recovered from the sponsorship scandal. The Liberals have a steep mountain to climb to get over this challenge. Although the Liberals will have a new leader, a key question Canadians will likely ask is – how will this new leader be a break with the past?

Now, originally I had read the BQ’s motion translated into English as Quebecers, rather than Quebecois. That makes the difference between the BQ motion and Harper’s motion appear bigger, and the Harper motion more attractive. At this point, I’m tempted to go with Harper’s motion, as it brings it clearly from the political sense to the sociological sense.

Indeed. Again, Quebecker definitely means "from Quebec" in my mind, while Québécois talks more to the history and culture of French Canadians.

The Ontario government was accused of bringing down the "guillotine" yesterday on its controversial overhaul of the province's Human Rights Commission.

The opposition said a time-allocation motion introduced by the government this week was a blatant attempt to cut off debate and ram through the proposed changes. The motion, which passed in the legislature last night, will see debate wrap up next Wednesday and the bill tabled for third reading the following day.

The motion amounts to a sharp reversal by the government. Only last week, Attorney-General Michael Bryant said in the legislature that he looked forward to the debate lasting "however long it takes."

Who would have thought that the term "sharp reversal" would be used to describe Ontario Liberal Party policy?

What's even funnier? There was a public notice for public consultations in the same issue of the Globe & Mail on page A6. I found the text on the web:

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy will meet to consider Bill 107, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code.

The Committee intends to hold public hearings in Toronto commencing on Wednesday, November 15, 2006.

The Committee intends to hold additional public hearings in the winter on dates and in locations to be determined.

Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 107 must contact the Committee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 15, 2006.

There are fourteen recommendations put forward by the party on this issue, which are summarized at the Ontario PC Party website.

The 14 recommendations focus on three broad categories: speeding up the process, helping newcomers once they have arrived and integrating them into our workforce. Some of these recommendations include:

Building a really useful, cutting edge web portal that provides accurate credentialing information and opportunities for potential immigrants before they move to Canada. The same portal could and should deliver courses to help people Canadianize their credentials.

Expand the Ontario Student Assistance Program to make loans available for new Canadians bridging or upgrading their training.

Provide more supports for ESL training – to lower the language barriers that stand in the way of so many new Canadians’ success.

Use the platform of TVO to provide effective general language, training and integration information to help new immigrants to adjust to Canada. Training materials produced by TVO would be available on-line to people waiting to come to Canada.

Leverage on our existing system of colleges and universities and support them in providing training opportunities overseas.

Expand bridging, mentoring and work experience programs for new Canadians by including more small and medium sized businesses. These programs must be attractive, accessible and affordable for smaller enterprises.

Once again, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario puts together a well thought out policy, after consultations with groups affected.

Former Ontario premier Bob Rae is the most popular contender in the race for the leadership of Canada’s Liberal party, according to a poll by Decima Research released by the Canadian Press. 37 per cent of respondents say they are more likely to support the Liberals if Rae, who governed the country’s most populous province as a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP), is their leader.

Academic Michael Ignatieff is regarded as the best prospective leader for the opposition Liberal party in Canada, according to a poll by The Strategic Counsel released by CTV and the Globe and Mail. 35 per cent of respondents think Ignatieff would be a good or very good choice.

Former Ontario premier Bob Rae—who governed Canada’s most populous province as a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP)—is second with 33 per cent, followed by former social development minister Ken Dryden with 30 per cent, former environment minister Stéphane Dion and former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy with 24 per cent each, and former public works and government services minister Scott Brison with 21 per cent.

I wonder what the polls would say if Ignatieff went and jumped in a lake.

Vancouver's safe injection site is slowing down the spread of HIV and helping drug users quit their habits, a new study finds — but an expert suggested that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government won't want to hear those results.

The study, which will appear Tuesday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, says the three-year-old Supervised Injection Site in the Downtown Eastside has been a great success.

Wedding bells are ringing for a growing number of same-sex couples across Canada, according to data compiled by Canadians for Equal Marriage, an organization that backs the country's current marriage law.

The data, to be released this morning, shows that more than 2,300 same-sex couples obtained marriage licences over a five-month period beginning in June -- nearly a quarter of the national total for the entire previous three years.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Sharing public spaces with millions of other people takes work. Most of the time, it's no biggie for the seasoned city resident, but every now and then a serious etiquette violation can upset the balance.

...

Continue reading to see how Torontoist imagines these tickets would look like. We've also linked to PDF versions of them to download in case our readers actually want to drop a hint to someone on their own.

Torontoist cites offenses for uses on the TTC, the Entertainment District, and in the city in general.

I have some food court etiquette offenses that warrant a card.

Complaining about the quality of food court food during peak hours.

First off, the majority of food court food stinks so complaining is redundant.

Secondly, I'm usually in something of a hurry when I'm in line for Combo #32, and I don't want you to complain that the wasabi for your food court sushi lacks that certain je ne sais quoi.

Thirdly, if the food provider does entertain your complaint, do not storm off in the middle of them trying to resolve it. They're usually handling me next and I don't want your helping of Vengeance SpitTM.

Loitering in the food court.

If you are seated at a table, then you must be eating. If you are not eating, you are not seated at the table.

The logic works both ways.

Extra loitering in the food court.

Two people do not need a table for 4. A "coat" and a "briefcase" do not constitute two extra people.

Condiments not easily accessible adding to turmoil.

Providers should not provide condiments in bottles, jars, or in containers requiring manual dexterity unless you provide a separate and distinct counter for the application of condiments. Everything should be in little packets, or should be available in little packets from the provider next door for easy pilfering.

Providers must at least try to make edible food.

I know, I'm not allowed to complain about the quality, but don't assume we're stupid. I know my herbs, and human hair does not taste the same as lemongrass.

I also believe it is a testament to the Conservative Party that they can attract a candidate of Ms Haskett’s stature.

My Goodness they had to look all the way to Washington D.C. to find her.

If you said that it's proof that the Conservative Party doesn't work right when selecting candidates, you get half marks because that it isn't the whole answer. If you said the problem is selecting candidates in a non-democratic fashion, that's not it either.

Indeed, the problem with the political party system is not when the party selects the candidates in a non-democratic method - be it through nomination protection in Calgary West, caucus eviction in Halton, or candidate parachuting in London-North Centre - the problem is when the individual party members accept the practice as good or as justified. It's not just the Conservative Party either that does this. I'll let you figure out the others.

These parties that do this, should eliminate the electoral district association, or fundamentally change their role. Right now, there is a mistaken perception that the local EDA have a choice in candidate selection. They do not, but the parties pretend they do.

It should be noted when you join a political party and run for the EDA that:

Candidates are chosen by the central party headquarters.

If in the event that a candidate cannot be selected by central party headquarters, the EDA may solicit requests from the membership and go through an election process. Regardless of that election outcome, the central party headquarters has the right to revoke that candidate's selection at any time, including caucus eviction after a successful election.

So, if you like that, then you should be fine. If you don't like that, then you should move on. That's the way it works, and there's nothing wrong about it.

Again, the problem isn't the party politics - it's the people who support it. Instead of fighting it, leave and find something better. These parties will get the hint, eventually.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Jack Palance, the leather-faced, gravelly-voiced actor who earned Academy Award nominations for "Sudden Fear" and "Shane," and who finally captured the Oscar almost 40 years later as the crusty trail boss in the 1991 comedy western "City Slickers," has died. He was 87.

Palance, who had been in failing health with a number of maladies, died today of natural causes in Montecito at the home of his daughter Holly, family members said.

He was one of the best-loved bad guys in motion picture and television history -- the murderous husband in "Sudden Fear" (1952), the creepy gunslinger in "Shane" (1953) and the cantankerous cattle driver Curly in "City Slickers" -- and kept acting well into his 80s.

I remember being first introduced to Jack Palance when he hosted the old Ripley's Believe It or Not TV show back in the 80's. His cameo in Batman as Boss Carl Grissom was memorable and nobody can forget Curly from City Slickers.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Well, actually, nobody has, but if you knew why I don't jaywalk, you probably would email me to ask me why I don't jaywalk.

Yes, that was a lame opening.

Anyway, I went for a walk yesterday during lunch over in the Entertainment District and noticed that there were a lot of people jaywalking. Traffic downtown was surprising light, and so there were a lot of intersections with red lights on for no reason, I guess. People would charge out and cross without a care. Me, being the non-jaywalker, would just stand on the corner feeling all alone.

My problem isn't with the actual act of jaywalking as I have jaywalked and continue to do so. My problem is with the "when" the act occurs.

I'm usually only in an opportunity to jaywalk when I'm downtown.

I'm usually only downtown when I'm working.

Therefore, if I jaywalk, I increase the likelihood of me being bug splatter on the windshield of a minivan during a work day.

And, I have an irrational fear of dying while working or while at work (which explains my previous exclamations about preppy junior accountants trying to run me over. See? It's a pattern). The thought of my last few moments on earth consumed with setting up a meeting or checking my voice mail makes me nauseous. The worst thought I could have as my last would be, "Did I forget to issue a status report?"

Friday, November 03, 2006

I don't have a whole lot of insight to add in the discussion of the income trust issue. The Conservative government was right to close down income trusts as non-taxable entities, but wrong to close them down as they did.

In short, the income trust loophole needed to be closed. Eric Reguly, in the Globe & Mail, describes it thusly.

Tax balance -- the relative proportion paid by corporations and individuals -- was already in trouble in Canada. The rising trust market threatened to kill it. The impression given by corporations, with their lobbyists and PR men and speechwriters, is they pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country, and that the tax burden is making them uncompetitive in the global market. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that corporations paid the equivalent of 60 per cent of all individual taxes collected in the early 1960s, according to national accounts. Since then, the figure has dropped to about 30 per cent. In other words, the relative tax burden on the individual has doubled, while on corporations it has been halved.

The trust market could theoretically shift the corporate tax burden to zero. In time, the individual, like Sisyphus, would have to push the tax stone up the hill all by himself. Fair and balanced? Forget it.

It was only a matter of time before a government (any government) would have shut them down. If you had income trusts as the cornerstone of your investment portfolio, you were an accident waiting to happen. It's unfortunate too - they were attractive - high regular dividend payments at a preferred tax rate made them far more attractive than GICs and bonds, and certainly more so than regular equities.

Stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them.

What the Conservative government has effectively done is attacked retirement savings (and savings in general) and did nothing to preserve income trusts. What's worse politically, is they have validated the Liberal "attack" on them.

Garth Turner had a better solution to handling the income trust closure:

I think the minister of finance could have declared a moratorium on new conversions, struck a blue ribbon panel to study the industry and eased in regs over the past few months making it crystal what direction the feds were going in. That would have allowed for a more orderly, less panicked correction, and kept from scaring the crap out of a few million seniors. It would have been a kinder blow. But if you’re a prime minister planning an election in a few months, and want nasty things done now so people will forget about them, well, you pick another route.

Which leads me to my final comment.

I think everyone concedes that the federal government had to close down income trusts as a non-taxable entity. I'm just surprised it happened now and in this manner. This is usually one of those "got to do" policies that a government does in the first year of a majority mandate so that people forget it by the time you go to the polls again. We may be headed back early next year and I think this is going to be fresh on everyone's mind.

Sure, the fish will all be dead, but Canada will have reduced it's greenhouse gas emissions by half two years later!

An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the effects of fisheries collapses.